Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff reeled in a stunner this weekend from The Wall Street Journal:
Well, on the front page of the Journal’s Weekend section this morning is a feature on how women from healthier populations prefer feminine-looking men. The piece is illustrated with a grid showing facial features of such feminine-looking men..
There is, in the bottom image of the lower quadrant of a male face, an unmistakable—if you pay attention to such things—dimple and odd right ear.
Without a doubt, the Wall Street Journal has selected Arthur Sulzberger as a prime example of its idea of a feminine-looking man.
Here’s the august WSJ’s graphic:
And here’s Sulzberger’s NYT mugshot:
Murdoch often uses the editorial power of his papers to pursue his business goals. Foremost on his agenda is to maul The New York Times. Murdoch believes that one advantage he has in going after the Times is that Sulzberger is so easy to play and rile up—Murdoch once, with me, used puppet strings to refer to Sulzberger—and that Murdoch has a special understanding for how to get under Sulzberger’s skin. In the past, Murdoch has taken particular delight when the New York Post’s “Page Six” has ridiculed Sulzberger—with Sulzberger calling Murdoch personally to protest. “Whinging” is the word Murdoch uses for Sulzberger’s calls.
I’m not sure what’s worse: If Murdoch or Thomson had it put in themselves or if staff has been drinking the News Corp. Kool-Aid enough to do it on their own.
I think every journalist in the United States ought to be outraged at the apparent attempt of Murdock and the Wall Street Journal to undermine the New York Times by putting out a New York edition. And likely doing it at a loss. It has only one purpose to damage another newspaper.
At a time when newspapers and their employees are under exteme economic distress Murdock's move or plan appears purposefully harmful, a form of blackmail.
I suggest that journalists boycott the WSJ and buy an extra copy of the New York Times, especially the week that the Murdock trick appears.
I think an action against the Journal would be appropriate and deserved.
Can you imagine a newspaper enterprise of the quality and political thrust of Fox News? That, I think, is Murdock's aim.
Roldo Bartimole
Cleveland Ohioi
#1 Posted by Roldo Bartimole, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 03:46 PM
Don't be silly, Roldo. Murdoch has no need to undermine the NYT, which is doing a splendid job of eroding its own standing.
Circulation: down
Revenue: down
Credibility: Down
If Rupert's minions wish to make a little sport of a twit who brings a stuffed moose to an editorial meeting, who can blame them?
My friends at The Times speak disparagingly of Pinch. Why shouldn't Rupert do likewise?
#2 Posted by roger, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 01:27 AM
You have to say, whether you like Murdoch or not, this is pretty damn funny.
Sulzberger is a certified far-left loon who publicly bemoaned his inability to use his inherited power to bring down the Bush administration. (Pop quiz: Can you imagine the outcry if Murdoch had done the same on his side?) He also ran through billions buying back NYT stock only to see it collapse. Whatever Murdoch might do to Sulzberger, it can't touch what he's already done to himself.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 08:49 AM